George Q. Cannon,
"Opposition to the Saints, and Its Cause",
Journal of Discourses,
vol. 24,
pp. 38-50,
June 25, 1882.

Hostile Feeling Towards the Saints—Their Morality Compared With that of the World—Laxity of Laws and Immorality in Washington—Object of the Edmunds' Bill—Cause of Former Hostility—Saints to Contend for Liberty—Rights of Congress—Other Things to Be Dreaded More Than Hostile Legislation—Effect of Such Legislation—Shame of Congressmen—Destiny of the Saints

Discourse by President George Q. Cannon, delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday, June 25, 1882.

Reported by Geo. F. Gibbs.

I am exceedingly thankful to have the opportunity once more of being
with you and of partaking of that peaceful and sweet influence which
prevails in the midst of this much despised and terribly abused
people. The contrast, to me, is exceedingly marked between the
circumstances in which I have been placed and the influences that I
have had to meet, and those which surround me today. There have been
some things which have transpired which have not been very pleasant;
but on the whole, I can truthfully say, that I have enjoyed myself
better than I expected, and probably much better than many of you
would suppose that one under the circumstances could do. At no time,
in my experience—in my life, have I ever seen a more embittered
feeling manifested against the Latter-day Saints than prevailed during
this past winter. You have had opportunities of understanding this to
some extent, for you have felt that influence here, and you have seen
its effects in the results that have been wrought out. And I suppose if
we were like other people we should have been terribly alarmed at the
manifestations we have wit-nessed. There was a time when it
seemed as though all hell had broken loose, and that nothing less than
the entire destruction of the organization of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints would satisfy popular clamor. A most
extraordinary manifestation, especially when we consider the absence
of all provocation for such an outburst of wrath. If a person last
winter had come into Utah Territory and traveled through our
settlements, visiting the houses of the people and examining the
condition of affairs here, he would have found it difficult to
understand the cause of all the excitement that was raging throughout
the United States concerning this people. If there are those who do
not believe in the existence of spiritual powers and influences, let
them examine into this Utah question and the effects of its agitation
upon the public mind, and it seems to me they must be convinced that
there are unseen powers which operate upon the minds of the people at
large, to produce such extraordinary outbursts of prejudice and
passion as we have witnessed—fifty millions of people stirred up from
one end of the land to the other by a tornado of passion, unreasoning,
blind, besotted, bloodthirsty, which has carried men and women before
it, and has dethroned reason, concerning a people who were quietly
pursuing their avocations, molesting none, doing nothing that could be
construed by any reasonable person into anything that would be
offensive.

It is generally supposed that we are living in an enlightened age.
Popular preachers claim that this is the crowning generation for
light, and knowledge, and truth; that we are living in fact, in the
full blaze of Gospel light and glory. Politicians also claim that this
republican government of the United States is the fruit of the ripened
experience of all the ages; the product of the accumulated wisdom of
the centuries; that human aspirations finds the fullest development
under our form of government. This is the boast of the press, and
these are the teachings of the pulpit. And yet, through agencies which
boast of their enlightenment, this whirlwind of passion to which I
have alluded—this spasm of feeling that has convulsed the nation, has
swept over the land, and everything has been done that was possible to
make it destructive in its effects upon the objects of its wrath. I
have thought, and have sometimes expressed myself, that if lies could
destroy a people, we should have been buried out of sight long ago.
The basest and most malignant and most cruel, the most unfounded and
causeless misrepresentations and falsehoods have been circulated, and
men and women who knew nothing about us, preachers who had no idea of
our real belief, and editors who had no conception of the true
condition of affairs in this Territory, have all lent themselves,
sometimes understandingly, and other times ignorantly to do everything
in their power to destroy an innocent people. And what has been the
crime? We have been accused of immorality. God knows if that were to
be a crime sufficient to evoke destruction, there would be other
communities visited with wrath besides ours, even if we were all that
we are painted. But the fact is, there is no other Territory or State
in the United States—and I say this knowingly and
understandingly—where virtue is respected, revered and protected as it
is in Utah. There is no other community in the United States in
which more young men grow up to manhood pure, in proportion to the
population than in the Territory of Utah.

As I have repeatedly said, we believe in marriage, we have opened the
door in that direction, and we say to the sexes marry; but we close
the door in the other direction, and say, you shall not commit
adultery, you shall not seduce, defile, prostitute or lead astray
innocent beings; if you do, and we had the power, we would punish you.
It seems like a paradox that those who do that which is according to
their religion should be punished, while those who trample upon their
religion should go free. And yet this is really true. All that we can
be accused of is, we have embodied in our religion practices that
belonged to the Patriarchs, which we believe, and so declare, God has
revealed to us, for the purposes of salvation and of producing greater
purity and of checking the flood of vice that is sweeping through the
land and sapping the foundation of this nation and all the nations of
Christendom. We have adopted the principle of plural marriage as part
of our religion. We have not led women astray, we have protected them.
We have not coerced them or used violence, but have thrown around them
a shield of protection, and at the same time have left them to
exercise the fullest liberty and the most extensive right of free
choice in every respect. But this is a sin; this shocks, we are told,
the moral sense of the nation. While, on the other hand, there are
communities who say they do not believe in adultery or in
seduction—that is, their religion teaches them that these things are
wrong; but many of whose members practice these crimes, and yet they
pass along unnoticed and undisturbed.

Salt Lake City is 2,400 miles
from Washington—a remote place; it might be supposed the effect of our
examples, if they were bad, would not reach that distance; that if
there was any contagion flowing from our practices it would have
expended its force before traveling that far. But in Washington City,
at the head of the government, where Congress has unquestioned
jurisdiction, there is no law against adultery; no one can be punished
in the District for violating the marriage vow; that escapes the
attention of Congress. So with fornication; it goes unpunished, unless
it should be of so flagrant a character, done in so open and indecent
a manner as to excite public condemnation. Now if morality were to be
achieved it might be thought that Washington would be a fine field for
the exercise of the power that is unquestionably invested in the
Congress of the United States. I presented this view of the question
to Senator Edmunds, when this bill, which has since become a law, was
being discussed. I called his attention to the fact that it was not an
infrequent thing, in taking up an evening paper in Washington City, to
read accounts of the finding of two or three infants that had been
cast away or deserted by their inhuman mothers, found in vacant lots
and in out-of-the-way places, and that too in the most elegant city to
be found in the United States. It appeared to me, as I said to him,
that Washington was a splendid field for the exercise of the power of
Congress. If it was a sincere wish to check immorality, and to put
down vice that prompted the Edmunds' bill, however mistaken its author
might be in his ideas respecting the existence of these evils in Utah,
the best place to commence was at the head. But
it was plain
to be seen that nothing in that bill was designed to reach real vice,
to strike down immorality; it was a blow at our religious practices.
To be sure, however, as to what the intent of the bill really was, and
to know this from his own lips, I asked him if adulterers could be
punished in Utah Territory under the provisions of the bill. His reply
was that if a man who had one wife were to live openly and
continuously with another woman he could be punished under it; but
adulterers would not be very likely to expose themselves to the
operations of the law in that manner. He said that “sporadic cases of
adultery could not be punished by this bill.” I thought the reply one
of which a Senator of the United States should be ashamed. I have
known Senator Edmunds for some time, and have had some admiration for
him, but I declare I blushed for him when he made the reply that
“sporadic cases of adultery” could not be punished under the
provisions of this bill, now become law.

Now, you can see what the design is. It is not to punish immorality.
If immorality were the object to be reached, that law would have been
made broad enough for every case, whether they be practices, what they
term under religious guise, or practices in violation of religion.
What then is the object of the measure? It is to strike down a
prominent feature of our religion; that is its object, and there is no
other object to be achieved. It is the fact that we make marriage a
part of our religion that excites animosity, and they are determined
to destroy us.

“If you were to protect immorality and not call it religion,” I have
been told many and many a time, “we should not object to it; but you
are sanctioning by the forms of religion that which we cannot endure,
and which is hateful to our civilization.” It is the marriage
ceremony, that is the offensive part of it; it is, in other words, the
marrying that excites dislike and hatred.

Now, is this to be wondered at? I do not wonder at it; I am not
surprised at all at this feeling; for the reason that I have always
expected that this doctrine, like every doctrine connected with this
Church, would excite the bitter hatred of those who oppose the work of
God. It was the fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Elders of
this Church declared that revelation had been received from God, that
excited animosity in the first place. The Elders of this Church might
have preached any doctrines they pleased and not said they had been
taught them by revelation, nor by special divine assistance, nor by
angels having come from heaven, but preached them as the speculations
of men, as doctrines discovered, framed and arranged by men, by some
theologians of eminent ability, and they would have had no particular
difficulty. In preaching precisely the same doctrines we now preach,
that is, the first principles of the Gospel, a church might have been
made one of the most popular churches upon the face of the earth.

But what was it that excited animosity? It was the declaration that
God had spoken from the heavens and had restored the primitive Gospel
in its original purity and power, and that we had the power and
authority to administer in the ordinances of the Gospel through which
had been restored the gifts and blessings and powers that pertained to
the Gospel in the days of Jesus. It was
this declaration that
excited animosity throughout the religious world against the
Latter-day Saints in the beginning. Every preacher felt that he was
condemned by this declaration. If we had stood upon the same platform
as they, saying that our organization was the result of man's wisdom,
we should then have had some sympathy from them. But because our
Elders declared that God had spoken, and that we preached that which
had been revealed to us, animosity was excited, and mobs rose against
us, entertaining the most bitter feelings, and committing the most
terrible outrages.

It is interesting reading now, in this year of our Lord, 1882, to go
back to that which occurred fifty years ago, in Missouri, soon after
this Church was organized. The charges against us then were that we
believed in Prophets, that we believed in revelation, that we believed
in healing the sick, according to the pattern in the New Testament,
that we were so credulous as to believe that God would work miracles;
and the crowning accusation was that we were Yankees and
abolitionists, and therefore were unfit to live in the State of
Missouri. I say, it is interesting in these days to go back and read
the documents issued by the mob in 1832-3 in Jackson County, Missouri.
There was no plural marriage then to cause offense. The cry against us
then was, that we believed that God was a God of revelation as He was
in ancient days; that He was the same God in this, the 19th century,
that He was in the first century of the Christian era, when Jesus and
the Apostles ministered among men. This was considered sufficient
cause for mobs to organize themselves and drive our people from their
homes and lands, and to kill some of them.

If we were to practice plural marriage in some other manner, and not
sanctify it by the forms of religion; if we were to be guilty of
anything of this character, separating it entirely from all religious
ceremonies and ordinances, there would be little, if anything, said
about us. To judge from expressions I hear, I do not suppose it would
excite any particular animosity.

We, as a people, have to pass through these ordeals. It is a great
consolation to me, it has been while I have been absent, to know that
we are fighting the battles of religious liberty for the entire
people; it might be said, for the entire world. And there is no people
on this continent in so good a position to do this today as we are,
for there is no people so well organized as we are. No man,
single-handed, could do what we are doing; no half dozen men could do
it; they would be crushed. Let any man go out from this place and
attempt, single-handed and apart from any other organization, to fight
the battle that we are fighting, and he would soon be overwhelmed. But
we are an organized community; we can live here as we did in the early
days without help from any other source except God. We can raise our
food; we can make our clothing. If it be necessary we can pinch
ourselves, dispense with luxuries, and can live on those things which
are barely essential to life. We do not necessarily have to depend
upon other people for support. If grasshoppers come and sweep our
fields, as they have done, there is no cry from Utah to the general
government for help. We have borne these afflictions unassisted by our
fellow citizens; and we have proven to our own satis-faction, if not to the nation at large, that we are capable of sustaining
ourselves. Therefore, when wrath is excited against us, we do not lose
employment, we do not lose food, we are not turned out of our houses
nor otherwise impoverished; because we have the elements in our own
midst from which we can draw a living; and we know how to use them for
our own sustenance, and for the preservation of those who are
dependent upon us. Hence we are in an excellent position to fight the
battles of freedom; and it is the most glorious warfare that men or
women were ever engaged in. I expect we shall continue to contend for
liberty, not with physical weapons but with steadfast moral courage,
despite the Edmunds' law, despite the Poland law, despite the law of
'62, or any other law that may be made in violation of the
Constitution, and of the Bill of Rights. We shall have to contend
unceasingly for those principles, without wavering or yielding one
iota in our determination. I claim this not for Latter-day Saints
alone, but I claim it for every man and woman in this Republic; for I
say that the men and women in this great nation have the right to
worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, as
long as they do not, in so doing, interfere with the rights of their
fellow citizens; and I claim that they have the right to do this,
despite the Supreme Court decisions, despite the action of Congress,
despite the expressions of pulpit and press; and I am willing to
contend for that liberty for every man and woman whether they be of
the Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Episcopalian, or any other
persuasion, or whether they be believers in the doctrines or views of
Col. Robert Ingersol. God has given us this right, and He has given
unto us our agency. If we violate His will He will punish us; He has
threatened us with punishment if we do so, and we are responsible to
Him, and not to the Congress of the United States, not to the
President of the United States, nor to any human being; we are
responsible alone to our God, and there is no power upon the earth
that can justly deprive me or deprive you of this right. They may, by
force of power, by illegal measures and unconstitutional laws do this;
men may be imprisoned or slain; but the principle that I now declare
is a fundamental, a constitutional principle, and it will endure. And
the day will come in this land when every man will have this right,
regardless of his profession. Are we to be dictated to by popular
preachers? Such men say to the Congress of the United States, “You
must enact certain laws; we demand it of you; our congregations demand
it; you must put down ‘Mormonism.’ We do not want that religion. We
are Methodists; we are Presbyterians, or we are somebody else, and we
call upon you to maintain orthodoxy and to put down heterodoxy.” I
would just as soon be dictated to by the Pope of Rome, by Mr. Ingersol
or by a “Mormon” Bishop, as to be dictated to by popular preachers, as
to what I must accept as religion.

Fault is found with us in this Territory because it is said the
hierarchy dictates legislation; but you know this is not true. I wish
we could dictate it more than it is done. We have our views like other
citizens, but who has ever known them to be forced upon any? And, yet,
this is the head and front of our offending, namely, that in Utah
there is a theocracy dictating legislation.
Now, who is it that
has demanded of Congress this Edmunds' law against Utah? It has been
the pulpit of our nation, the orthodox pulpit. It is at their behests
this legislation has been enacted. They would destroy us; and if they
could do this then they would turn their attention to somebody
else—the Catholics, the Infidels, the Spiritualists—they would not be
satisfied until they obtained what they call “uniformity.” They do the
very thing themselves that they charge us with doing, and which they
pretend they desire to prevent in this Territory.

It is this principle of freedom of which I have been speaking that we
are determined to maintain; we shall contend for it to the very
uttermost as long as life remains. This is the feeling I have. Do you
not feel the same? I am sure you do; I know you all do; I need not
call for any expression of your feelings. We cannot fight law; we must
submit to law, the law being more powerful than we are; but we can do
as John Bunyan said: “I cannot obey, but I can suffer.” We cannot
renounce our religion; we cannot throw it aside; we cannot trample
upon the commandments of God; but we can endure the penalty of obeying
God's law, even if it be imprisonment. It is part of the contract. We
know what others had to endure for the religion of Jesus, and if we
expect to obtain the same glory as they, we must be prepared to endure
the same consequences.

I do not make these remarks to stir up feelings of defiance. It would
be a most unwise and a most unfortunate position for us to occupy, to
place ourselves in an attitude of defiance against the laws of the
land; but while we do not defy, we at the same time shall maintain, I
hope, the principles of liberty, and claim them for every man and
woman as well as ourselves. We shall never cease our efforts, I hope,
until from one end of the land to the other men and women can worship
God whether they be Mormon or infidel, or whether they believe in
Buddha, or are believers in the God of Israel, the Lord of the whole
earth, or worship a wooden god, without interference or interruption
from others as long as they do not trespass upon or interfere with the
rights of their fellow citizens. All ought to have this right, and no
one should seek to deprive them of it.

The most nonsensical arguments have been used against us in
consequence of our claiming liberty of this kind. Say some men:
Suppose there were Thugs in this country, or Hindoos who believed in
burning widows as they did in India, shall the government not have the
right to put down such murders and such ceremonies of cremation?
Suppose that human sacrifice was deemed proper by some religious sect
and should be called a religious ordinance, do you mean to say that
government has not the right to interfere with and to stop the taking
of life in such a way?

Certainly, I have never said it had not, neither have I claimed it
when I have said that we had a right to practice this feature of our
religion. There is a very wide distinction, but many do not seem to
understand the difference. There are certain acts that are crimes in
and of themselves; they are not made so by statutory law; one of these
is murder. It always was a crime against nature and always will be. He
who takes the life of a fellow being commits a crime, even if it
should be in a land
where there is no law; it is in and of
itself a crime—malum in se. It needs no statutory law to make it so.
Marriage occupies a very different position from this. Before the law
of 1862 was passed by Congress a man might have married in this
Territory two or more wives, there being no law—human nor divine—that
we had any knowledge of, prohibiting it. There was no law of the
United States against it; there was no law of the Territory against
it, and it was not in and of itself a crime. It was made a crime by
the law of July 1, 1862, which, we assert, was in violation of the
first amendment to the Constitution. It was malum prohibitum!—a crime
made so by statutory law. There is a wide distinction between the two;
and every ordinary mind must, I think, readily admit that there is no
comparison between marriage and murder, robbery, theft and crimes of a
kindred character. Still there are a great many people who do not seem
to understand this.

They say, “Suppose you believed in murder, in human sacrifice, do you
mean to say that we would not have the right to interfere with you;
that we could not do anything to check that practice?”

Certainly they could and should. They could check any practice that we
might be guilty of that would interfere with the rights of our fellow
men. Government has the right, and owes it to its citizens, to protect
them in their rights—to protect their lives, to protect their
property, to protect them in all their civil rights and in their
religious rights also, and to prevent others from doing them violence.
Beyond this it should not go. And they call our system of marriage,
bigamy. Such confusion of terms! The essence of the crime of bigamy is
that a man, already married to one wife, clandestinely marries
another. Both women are wronged and deceived; the first by his
marrying a second time during her lifetime; the second by his
concealment of the fact that he already has a living wife. In the
anxiety to attach odium to our system of marriage, our enemies call it
bigamy, ignoring the fact that, according to our rules, a man who has
one wife does not take another wife without the consent of the first
wife; no advantage is taken of her by keeping her in ignorance. The
new relationship has been entered into by common consent. There is no
element of crime about this—that is, of the crime of bigamy. It is, as
I have said the concealment that makes it a crime; it is the fact that
both women are deceived and wronged by the act of the man. And such a
man ought to be punished. That which has been done has been done in
the face of high heaven, in the light of day, believing, as we did,
that it would be the means of preserving this community in purity,
that if every means were used to provide for marriage there would be
no margin of unmarried women left for lust to prey upon.

Men have said to me: “Mr. Cannon, we cannot understand why it is that
women will consent to such arrangements.”

“My dear sirs,” I have said, “do you not think that the ladies who
occupy questionable relationships to gentlemen in this city
(Washington) would be very glad to have that relationship sanctified
by marriage; do you think they would object to it? Would any true
woman, if she loved a man, put herself in such a false position in
society, and yet not marry him if she could do so honorably? Which
relation would
be the better and more honorable?”

I do not wish to convey the idea that plural marriage can be
universal. In the very nature of things as I have often said, it is
impossible; the equality of the sexes would prevent this, were men
ever so desirous to make it so. Take our own Territory: the males
outnumber the females; it cannot therefore be a practice without limit
among us.

No one need be afraid of the extensive spread of this system even if
the Edmunds' law were not in operation. Besides all this, it should be
borne in mind, that God did not give this revelation and commandment
to us to urge upon the world for its practice.

The greatest foe we have to contend with is ignorance. We are not
known. We are lied about most extensively, and every avenue is blocked
against us. Popular journals are afraid of injuring their circulation
by speaking the truth concerning us. The publishers are affected by
the same influences as the politicians—the pulpit and this popular
clamor cause men to be afraid. If we could be known as we really
are—not in Salt Lake alone, for this city is not a fair sample of
Utah; if it were possible for the people generally, who reiterate
these popular cries against us, to travel through our settlements
north and south, and see our people, there would be a very different
public feeling in regard to us. But we have been inundated by
falsehood, we are nearly covered by its waves, and people who know
nothing about us are so startled at this idea of polygamy, as it is
called, that they are prepared to believe anything that may be said
about us. We have this to contend against. In the end, however, we
shall be abundantly successful, for a people possessing the qualities
that the people of Utah do, can and will live—a people who are united,
a people who are honest, a people who are frugal, a people who are
temperate, a people who are orderly in their lives and who are
virtuous, truly virtuous, can withstand a tremendous amount of
pressure. There is only one way in which this people can be checked
and that is by extirpation. Otherwise, the qualities they possess are
bound to live in the struggle. The doctrine of “the survival of the
fittest,” applies to us, and insures us a long, a prosperous, an
uninterrupted and a glorious career. We can live in spite of adverse
legislation, in spite of commissioners, in spite of governors, in
spite of acts of persecution; we can live and still flourish, and
still grow and still increase; and we shall do it. I am not at all
afraid as to the result. Of course legislation of the Edmunds' kind
can pinch us; it can be made excessively disagreeable to us. It may
test us in ways that may be new to us; but sincerely I say to you, my
brethren and sisters, that I dread other things that exist in our
midst more than I do hostile legislation.

I dread the increase of luxury; I dread the increase of class
distinctions which I see growing up. The disintegrating influences of
wealth are far more to be dreaded than any outside pressure of this
character. All that is being done in this direction is to hoop us up,
as the cooper hoops up barrels. This has been the case already. During
the last five or six months I have had letters from all parts of our
Territory, and they uniformly bespeak a determination to cling
together.

But watch the effect of wealth;
look at its effects.
Communities get wealthy and they begin to think about their wealth.
Where their treasure is there is their heart also. Especially is this
the case if they are divided into classes. Then the rich are in a
position to be tempted and tried far more than they would be if they
were on the same plane with their fellows. If we are nearly alike
temporally we feel alike. In this has consisted much of our strength
in the past. We were not divided into classes, with interests diverse
one from the other. The sacrifices we had to make fell pretty equally
upon all, and there was no temptation offered one class because of its
greater wealth, to compromise with principle, or to question the
policy of standing up unflinchingly for principle, or to feel
different from the bulk of the community.

The increase of wealth, therefore, and the consequent increase of
fashions are more to be dreaded than hostile legislation. Let a wife
follow all the fashions of the day, and then let her children do the
same, and a man must have a deep pocket to sustain such a family. Give
him two or more wives and their children of this kind, and how long
can he keep up? Introduce fashions among us, and make women
fashionable, and make their daughters fashionable, and what is called
“the problem” will not be long in being solved. If a man then had more
than one wife he would need a large income to sustain them. Some women
might be shrewd enough to understand this, and if not wanting their
husbands to have another wife, might take pains to consume all the
income.

Well, our enemies never have had and never will have wisdom enough to
adopt any plan that will hurt this work. Why, instead of injuring this
people in what they have already done against us, they are only
advertising us. The effect of this persecution—I cannot call it
anything else—has been to call forth three able productions by men who
personally knew little or nothing about us. One man had visited here
and the other two were prompted in the interest of justice to write
and speak as they did, feeling that a great injustice was being done
to us, and that Constitutional rights were being trampled upon. One of
these, a gentleman in Boston, delivered an able lecture; and another
Bostonian wrote an able pamphlet; another gentleman in New York, wrote
one of the best pamphlets on life in Utah, that I have seen for many
years; and besides these there have been many correspondents who have
written upon the subject, and the result is that men and women have
been awakened to the consideration and examination of this question.
But if they had been silent concerning it, many never would have
thought of it. We must be advertised, and I do not know any better way
than that which has been adopted.

As far as my own case in Congress is concerned, I have not allowed
myself to be annoyed. Remarks have been made very frequently about my
bearing the attacks upon me so pleasantly. I have replied, “Why should
I not feel so—I am the wronged man? I had a larger majority in my
favor than any other man upon the floor of the House. I am the
representative of the people of Utah, properly elected, and fully
qualified and eligible for the position. This the committee of the
House, after the close of the strictest examination—and it might be
said, the most prejudiced examination,
have decided. Fourteen
out of fifteen of the committee on elections, after making a full
examination of the case, have decided that I was properly entitled to
the certificate, and as a consequence to the seat. If the
consciousness of being right ought to make a man feel pleasantly, then
I am entitled to the feeling. I feel as one who is called to make
sacrifices for a glorious cause.”

Great pressure was brought to bear upon republican members to have
them vote solidly on this question. One somewhat prominent man
purposed to make a speech denouncing the wrong which was being
attempted against me. He told me that Speaker Keifer heard of his
intention and “bulldozed” him out of making it. One member said to me:
“Mr. Cannon, in voting against you as I did, I told those around me
that I did the most cowardly act of my public life.” Another said,
“Mr. Cannon, I wrote to my wife and told her that I had done the
meanest thing I ever did since I have been a member of Congress, in
voting as I did against you.” “But,” said he, “what could I
do?” These
are samples of expressions made upon the subject. You can understand
that my position was one not to be ashamed of. The man that is wronged
has no occasion to feel the blush of shame on his cheeks; it is those
who commit the wrong who ought to have that feeling; and they cannot
help feeling that they are inferior to the one they have injured. But
notwithstanding the pressure of which I speak that was brought to bear
upon members, the conspirators against the liberties of Utah dared not
trust my case to the House till the Edmunds' bill had passed. There
were some strong men who could not see their way clear to vote against
my taking my seat. It was felt therefore that the only way my case
could be reached was by the Senate and House passing a law and having
it signed by the President of the United States. In this way, by using
all the powers of the government, except the judiciary, the case was
reached; but then they had to trample upon the Constitution to do it;
for the law, as applied to me, was ex post facto.

I had gone to Washington eight years previously; I had been at the bar
of the House four times to be sworn in, the same man in every respect.
It was not charged that I had violated any law since that time, or
rendered myself ineligible. After a determined contest I had been
confirmed in the seat by the 43rd Congress—a Republican Congress—also
by the 44th Congress—a Democratic Congress; also by the 45th and 46th
Congresses. Now by what law could a man in my position, having the
majority of the votes, and the fact being conceded that the election
had been fair and that there had been a full expression of the
people's will, according to the forms of law—I ask, upon what
principle of right could such a man be excluded from a seat in the
47th Congress? Legally he could not. There is only one way in which
that could be done, that is by trampling upon the principle of
representative government and the Constitution of the United States.
This was done in my case, and this action will stand on the books as a
precedent that will cause men to feel ashamed of it in days to come.

Now, my brethren and sisters, I return here feeling, as I have said,
excellently, and cheerfully, full of courage and hope, not at all
weakened in my feelings. I feel exceedingly hopeful and joyful and am
satisfied
that we are in the right path, that we are on the
winning side, because we have right, we have justice and we have truth
on our side. The only fear I have is that we shall fail to make use of
the opportunities God has given unto us of maintaining our integrity
and being true and faithful, for God has said, “I have decreed in my
heart that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in
my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy. For if ye
will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.” He has also
told us, “whoso layeth down his life in my cause, for my name's sake,
shall find it again, even life eternal. Therefore, be not afraid of
your enemies.”

This exhortation God has given unto us. And we may as well prepare
ourselves, if we are not already prepared, for everything of this
kind. The time must come when the principles of truth and
righteousness will prevail over the land; and it is our destiny to
maintain them and make them universal. The prophecies that were made
by the Prophet Joseph Smith concerning this nation and us will be
fulfilled. He said that the time would come when the Latter-day Saints
would be the only people that would maintain constitutional principles
upon this land. I have been taught from my youth that that was the
destiny of this people; that this nation would drift away from the
Constitution and Constitutional principles; that mobocracy would
reign, and the principles of right would be sacrificed to the power of
might. And we can see this coming to pass.

In former times mobs came against us with cannon and muskets, with
powder and ball, and the torch, and life and property alike fell
sacrifices to their violence. That was the expression of the popular
will; it found vent in illegal forms, the laws being trampled upon to
satisfy its demands. But matters have changed. Mobocracy today
assumes the forms of legality, and, therefore, in meeting this power
you have to wrestle with it under the form of law. In the early days
when the mob came upon us we could take our guns and meet it, but when
a mob comes backed up by law, clothed in the garb of the law, claiming
shelter under the Constitution, it is very different; and that is our
position today. We have fought mobs from the beginning; there have
been times when we have held our own, determined to stand our ground;
at other times we have been driven; until, at last, we found refuge in
these mountains.

Now we are subjected to another sort of test, and I look upon it as
necessary to develop us and to prove us. I accept this, in the
providence of God, as a means to school this people. It will make
statesmen and legislators of us; it already shows the necessity of
education; it will have the effect also to broaden our views, to
enlarge our intellects, and to stir up our young men and our young
women to prepare themselves for usefulness. We have to be a superior
people; we have to educate our children, and make them the peers, and
I may say, the superiors of all others, for we have the principles
which will make us a superior people. And in order to become such a
people, I do not know any better training that we could have than that
which we are now receiving, unpleasant though it may be. Read the
history of New England and you will see that we are passing through
precisely the same training that the colonists there did. It
developed them, and was the means of making them the great people that
they have since become.

I pray God to bless you and fill you with His Holy Spirit, and help
you to remain faithful and true to Him and to one another, that you
may never lose your courage or falter for a single moment, but
maintain your integrity to the last, and teach your children to do
likewise, that you and yours may be found among those who shall be
recognized as having been valiant in the cause of God upon the earth.
Let us be wise and prudent in all our talk, and cautious in everything
we do, feeling to submit to wrong rather than to do wrong, trusting
the Lord to overrule the intentions of our enemies for our good and
the final triumph of truth over error, and good over evil. There need
be no rashness, no defiance or manifestation of feeling. Let us show
the world that God has given unto us principles which lift us up above
these clouds that now envelope us; and that we have not been taught in
vain, that we have not passed through the scenes of the past fifty
years without having learned many valuable and excellent lessons.
Amen.